POL00193835
POL00193835
Alasdair Marnoch
Sent: Tue 20/08/2013 10:47:59 AM (UTC)
To: Paula Vennellsf__ “GRO.
Ce:
Subject: RE: IN CONFIDENCE: FOLLOW UP TO OUR MEETING
Thanks Paula - that makes good sense. I'll drop Richard a note updating him and advising that your office will
be in touch.
Let's regroup after your meeting.
A
Subject: Re: IN CONFIDENCE: FOLLOW UP TO OUR MEETING
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 10:33:51 +0000
Alasdair, thank you. A reply on the hoof, so apologies for the brevity.
Before we do anything further, if I am going to sponsor this (and as we discussed, I don't think there is anyone
else who could/should), then I would like to meet Richard asap.
Unless you or Alice get back to me to say otherwise, I shall ask my office to make contact with Richard
tomorrow. Happy to progress with a review of his brief in parallel.
Thanks again for your input,
Paula
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Aug 2013, at 11:15, "Alasdair Marnoch" ca
Alice/Paula
I wanted to follow up on the discussions yesterday we had separately about the Second Sight
report review.
For Alice's benefit, Paula and I had a good (if brief!) discussion on the work I had done since
POL00193835
POL00193835
Paula had. _GRO land about the benefits of bringing someone in from outside to
undertake a focused review. I'm sure Paula would like the opportunity to draw breath and get
comfortable with the review (given all the other work going on) but assuming Paula is ok then I
think we are in broad alignment with the approach.
On reflection (and having had 3 meetings in Aug on the SS work with S/A) I think this piece of
work should be viewed as part of our wider response to SS report and needs to slot in with the
other workstreams (avoiding any overlap). There are two main parts to the review
1. Lessons learnt from the way the PO handled Horizon questions from the point of JA's
involvement (essentially a process review)
2. Understanding any deeper (culture/HR etc) issues around how we handled the overall
questions of dealing with the concerns - ie reluctance for an independent enquiry
Paula and I also discussed who should lead this work. I am increasingly of the view that it should
be Paula firstly as it needs to fit in with the work Susan and Angela are doing and, more
importantly, that the SS experience is an ideal opportunity to make further change for the
better and the lessons learned will form part of Paula's change programme for the PO. But with
one eye on independence I am happy to support/co-sponsor.
On the scope/approach I have had one meeting with Richard and I gave him an outline scope.
He responded with TOR and scope both of which were broader than we intended (however for
him to address the second point he will need to get a good understanding of the
history/approach). I've reviewed and marked up both documents - could you please also review
and refine further. (Richard's original note is below).
Richard also raises a good question about talking to external parties which under normal
circumstances would be helpful (to get their view of how we have handled it). But given the
situation we should not do that as it is likely to exacerbate the current situation and will raise
questions about making the report public. So, like Alice, I think we should ask him not to do this
(although Alice did suggest he talks to Donald B if D is agreeable).
For next steps can I suggest Paula has a first go at the scope and then passes to Alice for final
sign off. I will then make contact with Richard and suggest another meeting to close out the
scope and agree next steps. With a fair wind Richard will be done by early Oct and his report +
the output from the other workstreams would form a good update for the Oct Board on SS.
Finally I've been reassured with my meetings with Susan and Angela that we seem to be doing
all the right things and and making good progress with the different stakeholders. Much to do
but confident we are learning the lessons and will be better as a result.
POL00193835
POL00193835
I hope this makes sense but happy to discuss.
Alasdair
PS The Post Office in South Warnborough (Jo Hamilton) is one of my local POs and I've just made
the connection!
From: hatfields12/~
To: alasdairmarnoc
Subject: IN CONFIDENCE: FOLLOW UP TO OUR MEETING
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:05:56 +0100
Alasdair,
Following our very useful discussion, I have now read the Second Sight interim report and some
other background on the web in order to work up my proposals for the conduct of the Review.
My proposal consists of the attached draft of fully fledged TOR developed from the initial sketch
you sent me, our discussion last week and my preliminary assessment of the ground that I think
the Review would need to cover.
The draft TOR are, I hope, generally self explanatory. I would welcome any comments or
suggestions but I have, however, made explicit a number of key assumptions/suggestions about
the status and methodology which I would like confirmed or corrected. In particular:
The Review is about Lessons Learned by the Post Office from the whole episode — i.e. it is not
an investigation of individual cases or of the performance of Horizon.
For this reason, the Review will be commissioned as private report to the Board (or the chair?
or you?). While I think this is the right starting point, I suggest the Board (and I) will want to
keep in mind the possibility of releasing the findings in some form after the PO has had an
opportunity to consider, both as a response to external interest and to assist with follow up
action.
The Review should not single out the Second Sight investigation, although the Second Sight
work is clearly an important aspect to be covered.
You and I will keep in contact throughout the Review, so there should be no surprises.
The second document expands the TOR but outlining the ground which I would want cover and
some of the key questions which, even at this early stage, I believe need to addressed
(particularly in the light of my reading of the Second Sight report). Of course, other issues may
well emerge as the Review progresses but please let me know if I am barking up any wrong
trees or if I have missed something that you would like covered.
One point my initial reading has brought home to me is the need to be careful about ensuring
POL00193835
POL00193835
that events and decisions are considered in their proper context. I suspect that this means
spending more time than I had thought on initial preparation to ensure that I understand the
chronology and organisational background before embarking on the main interview
programme. I hope, however, this can be done while the holiday season is still upon us, so that
it need delay the start of interviews. One thing I will undoubtedly need help with is identifying
an and arranging interviews with key players. 1am not clear whether you envisaged that I
would talk to anybody outside the PO. I guess I might need to talk to one or two people were
involved before the PO split off (Alice’s predecessor?) and If I am to do this thoroughly,
especially in looking at possible wider implications, I probably ought to talk to James Arbuthnot
and, conceivably, the JFSA. I would welcome your thoughts on this. One of the reasons for
spending more time on preparation is to try to ensure that I cover the relevant ground with
each interviewee as thoroughly as possible, not least to avoid imposing unduly on busy people,.
Nevertheless, it is likely that I will need to talk to some people a second time to clarify specific
points or to address something which has come up in later interviews.
In the light of the above, I think that the estimate of 20 days work in total remains reasonable, if
quite tight, but I am confident that there is no risk of a significant overrun. Nevertheless, I
would like to give myself a little more flexibility about the exact end date and have proposed a
deadline of the end of October. There are three reasons for this. First, fitting in all the
interviews could turn out to be more problematic than we expect. Second, I would like to leave
myself a little room for reflection both during the interviewing process and, particularly, after
the main evidence gathering and analysis. Third, it might be helpful to discuss my emerging
conclusions with you and/or Alice before finalising the report. I would also, of course, be very
happy to discuss the final version with both of you and, indeed, with the Board, if you so wished.
If you are comfortable with my proposals for TOR and coverage, including outputs and timings, I
suggest we agree a fixed fee of £10,000 for completion of the Review and submission of the
Report, broadly equivalent to £500 a day. Please let me know whether this would be
acceptable. If you are happy to proceed on this basis I would welcome an early chat about
when and how I can get on with some preparatory work.
Happy to discuss.
Richard
PS. Ona point of detail, who or what is “Shex”, referred to among the stakeholders?
<Post Office LLR - TOR AM.docx>
<LLR scope - AM.docx>
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient, you
must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have received this in error,
please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within
this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148 OLD STREET, LONDON
POL00193835
POL00193835
EC1V 9HQ.